OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[Coronita]

[quote=Shadowfax]Yeah, go figure. The state with the most developed corporate law in the country could be a creationism backwater after the elections.

Please, someone convince me the people of Delaware won’t let this woman become a Senator.

And, yes, someone already covered the Palin/McDonnel look-a-like issue:

http://www.newser.com/story/100685/stewart-skewers-sarah-palin-clone-christine-odonnell.html%5B/quote%5D

Ah don’t worry. It’s just a tiny state…One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent..If things get really bad with our creditors, I’m sure we can just pay down some of our debt by selling that state to them anyway…Though I’m not sure they would want it….

[Eugene]

[quote]One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent[/quote]

The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s not just one lunatic senator, it’s the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don’t believe in evolution, either.

Why can’t I have a party that’s pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

[Eugene]

[quote]One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent[/quote]

The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s not just one lunatic senator, it’s the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don’t believe in evolution, either.

Why can’t I have a party that’s pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

[Eugene]

[quote]One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent[/quote]

The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s not just one lunatic senator, it’s the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don’t believe in evolution, either.

Why can’t I have a party that’s pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

[Eugene]

[quote]One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent[/quote]

The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s not just one lunatic senator, it’s the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don’t believe in evolution, either.

Why can’t I have a party that’s pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

[Eugene]

[quote]One lunatic senator ain’t going to make a dent[/quote]

The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s not just one lunatic senator, it’s the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don’t believe in evolution, either.

Why can’t I have a party that’s pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

[faterikcartman]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html%5B/quote%5D

I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless — not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides — but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O’Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn’t obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by “we the people”. That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject — the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I’m pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O’Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you’re going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you’ve already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution — written so that all may understand them — protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O’Donnell’s opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you’ll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores — the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be “liberal” are anything but.

I’m not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I’ve just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html%5B/quote%5D

I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless — not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides — but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O’Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn’t obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by “we the people”. That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject — the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I’m pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O’Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you’re going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you’ve already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution — written so that all may understand them — protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O’Donnell’s opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you’ll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores — the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be “liberal” are anything but.

I’m not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I’ve just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html%5B/quote%5D

I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless — not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides — but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O’Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn’t obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by “we the people”. That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject — the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I’m pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O’Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you’re going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you’ve already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution — written so that all may understand them — protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O’Donnell’s opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you’ll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores — the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be “liberal” are anything but.

I’m not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I’ve just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html%5B/quote%5D

I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless — not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides — but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O’Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn’t obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by “we the people”. That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject — the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I’m pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O’Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you’re going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you’ve already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution — written so that all may understand them — protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O’Donnell’s opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you’ll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores — the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be “liberal” are anything but.

I’m not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I’ve just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html%5B/quote%5D

I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless — not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides — but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O’Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn’t obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by “we the people”. That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject — the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I’m pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review — the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O’Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you’re going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you’ve already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution — written so that all may understand them — protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O’Donnell’s opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you’ll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores — the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be “liberal” are anything but.

I’m not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I’ve just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

[Eugene]

[quote]I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion. [/quote]

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by “separation of church and state” and whether it’s the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I’ll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

[Eugene]

[quote]I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion. [/quote]

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by “separation of church and state” and whether it’s the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I’ll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

[Eugene]

[quote]I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion. [/quote]

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by “separation of church and state” and whether it’s the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I’ll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

[Eugene]

[quote]I know where the phrase is from — but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations — including Congress, prior to Justice Black’s opinion in the 1940’s. History belies your assertion. [/quote]

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by “separation of church and state” and whether it’s the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I’ll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

[Author]

Posts